ohiogirl
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 4,973
- Reaction score
- 48
Keep in mind that this comes from JS' attorney. Take it with a grain of salt, imo. :seeya:
Penn State Sandusky-Report of the Special Investigative Counsel
- Thread starter believe09
- Start date
Keep in mind that this comes from JS' attorney. Take it with a grain of salt, imo. :seeya:
costalpilot
Active Member
grain of salt,,,,,,thanks for the laugh. i needed that.
Was wondering about these dates this morning....
Date set for arguments on pretrial motions for Penn State's Curley, Schultz
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
By Laura Olson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
HARRISBURG -- A Dauphin County judge has set a date to hear oral arguments on pre-trial motions in the case of two Penn State University administrators charged with perjury and failing to report suspected child abuse incidents involving former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.
Attorneys for retired university vice president Gary Schultz and former athletic director Tim Curley will appear Aug. 16 at a hearing in Harrisburg, according to a release this morning from Dauphin County officials.
The two men are awaiting trial on charges of perjury for statements they made to a state grand jury and of failing to report the abuse incidents.
They were two of four key figures identified by former FBI director Louis Freeh in his report last week outlining how reports of Mr. Sandusky's actions were hidden by Penn State officials.
Mr. Sandusky was convicted last month on 45 of 48 counts related to sexually abusing 10 boys across the past 14 years. He is in state prison awaiting sentencing.
Harrisburg Bureau Chief Laura Olson: lolson@post-gazette.com or 717-787-4254.
First published on July 17, 2012 at 10:45 am
Read more: http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/12199/1247164-454.stm#ixzz20uB3XfqJ
Date set for arguments on pretrial motions for Penn State's Curley, Schultz
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
By Laura Olson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
HARRISBURG -- A Dauphin County judge has set a date to hear oral arguments on pre-trial motions in the case of two Penn State University administrators charged with perjury and failing to report suspected child abuse incidents involving former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.
Attorneys for retired university vice president Gary Schultz and former athletic director Tim Curley will appear Aug. 16 at a hearing in Harrisburg, according to a release this morning from Dauphin County officials.
The two men are awaiting trial on charges of perjury for statements they made to a state grand jury and of failing to report the abuse incidents.
They were two of four key figures identified by former FBI director Louis Freeh in his report last week outlining how reports of Mr. Sandusky's actions were hidden by Penn State officials.
Mr. Sandusky was convicted last month on 45 of 48 counts related to sexually abusing 10 boys across the past 14 years. He is in state prison awaiting sentencing.
Harrisburg Bureau Chief Laura Olson: lolson@post-gazette.com or 717-787-4254.
First published on July 17, 2012 at 10:45 am
Read more: http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/12199/1247164-454.stm#ixzz20uB3XfqJ
Couldn't get the photo to post - but looks like things are still pretty hot and heavy in Happy Valley.
AP Photo/Centre Daily Times, Nabil K. Mark
A plane flying over the Penn State University campus in State College, pulls a banner reading "Take the statue down or we will" today.
By Mark Dent / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
JULIAN, Pa. - From about 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., a plane towing a banner that read "Take The Statue Down or We Will" flew above State College, apparently sending a message to the Penn State administration about the Joe Paterno statue outside of Beaver Stadium.
The plane is owned by Air America Aerial Ads, a limited liability company based in Toledo, Ohio, according to its FAA registration.
Before the tail number could be identified by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Air America owner Jim Miller said the plane did not belong to him. Later calls to Miller and a company spokesperson were not immediately returned. Miller's company has flown sports-related banners before, including an anti-Tiger Woods banner at the 2010 Masters.
The pilot of the plane declined to identify himself, his company or to speak about the flight. The plane took off and landed at Ridge Soaring Gliderport in Julian.
The gliderport's owner, Tom Knauff, said his airport had no kno
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories...ss-about-paterno-statue-645043/#ixzz20ufNvaIb
AP Photo/Centre Daily Times, Nabil K. Mark
A plane flying over the Penn State University campus in State College, pulls a banner reading "Take the statue down or we will" today.
By Mark Dent / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
JULIAN, Pa. - From about 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., a plane towing a banner that read "Take The Statue Down or We Will" flew above State College, apparently sending a message to the Penn State administration about the Joe Paterno statue outside of Beaver Stadium.
The plane is owned by Air America Aerial Ads, a limited liability company based in Toledo, Ohio, according to its FAA registration.
Before the tail number could be identified by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Air America owner Jim Miller said the plane did not belong to him. Later calls to Miller and a company spokesperson were not immediately returned. Miller's company has flown sports-related banners before, including an anti-Tiger Woods banner at the 2010 Masters.
The pilot of the plane declined to identify himself, his company or to speak about the flight. The plane took off and landed at Ridge Soaring Gliderport in Julian.
The gliderport's owner, Tom Knauff, said his airport had no kno
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories...ss-about-paterno-statue-645043/#ixzz20ufNvaIb
Concerned Papa
New Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2009
- Messages
- 2,708
- Reaction score
- 24
Yoda
Master
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,017
- Reaction score
- 28
Clicking thank you wasn't enough.
:gthanks:
I don't agree with the conclusion to this article. The author had it right when he wrote:
He should have stopped there. Mike Franseca said it best when discussing the difference between Bear Bryant and Joe Paterno: Bryant just wanted to win football games; Paterno wanted to win football games and be a saint. The coverup only occurred to protect Paterno's phoney holier-than-thou image.
So, in my opinion, it's not fair to compare the Penn State scandal to other college football scandals. It's more appropriate to compare it to the child abuse scandals in the Catholic Church or Boy Scouts.
Besides, the author writes for the Wall Street Journal. You wanna talk about corruption....
JurysOut
Just a person
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2011
- Messages
- 2,498
- Reaction score
- 0
Couldn't agree more strongly.
Anyone here who lives in PA can tell you the caterwauling about St Joe hasn't begun to taper off. I find it an embarrassment.
It *is* different. The sex crimes + the personalities make this tragedy unique.
I live in PA and you are quite right. Maybe because the community at large is authoritarian and more likely to "mind my own business". There was a similar incident recently at the Milton Hershey School. A pedophile was allowed to continue, I think for 20 years, even though the board of the Hershey Trust knew about him. Mike Fisher, Tom Corbett and Leroy Zimmerman were prominent in that case. I heard a rumor Ed Rendell is trying to get a seat on the Hershey trust board in return for supporting Zimmerman's son-in-law for state AG in the coming election. I seem to recall when the Sandusky case first broke, Corbett was trying to get Tom Ridge onto the board. I guess he wasn't as chummy with them as he is now.
costalpilot
Active Member
you are quite right there, and more importantly, the President of the NCAA, the man who is going to impose sanctions on Penn Sate, he agrees with you. While one can never know about the 2A, if I were a Nittany Lion, I'd be plenty worried about the 2A. And I'm sure they are:
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/c...ake-child-sex-abuse-scandal-article-1.1116023
But NCAA President Mark Emmert, during a PBS interview, has apparently not ruled out giving Penn State the so-called death penalty.
"I've never seen anything as egregious as this in terms of just overall conduct and behavior inside a university and hope never to see it again," Emmert said on the "Tavis Smiley Show." "What the appropriate penalties are, if there are determinations of violations, we'll have to decide.
"We'll hold in abeyance all of those decisions until we've actually decided what we want to do with the actual charges should there be any. And I don't want to take anything off the table."
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/c...abuse-scandal-article-1.1116023#ixzz20zUZs0Rk
costalpilot
Active Member
as to the "caterwauling" about joepa in Pa....it is instructive to look at the history of de stalinization in Soviet Russia. beginning with the 20th party congress in 1956: 2 points: 1. the cult of the individual features centralized control of administration and totoal control over information, and 2. it took 30 YEARS for the effects of the cult of the individual to be eradicated in Russia. 30 years. and that was with the power of the Chairman of the Communist Part squarely behind the dismantling of the power. these infestations of cult worship are powerful systems that don't go away overnight when the head of the snake is chopped off. as to the continued worship of the individual, it is simply human nature. humans tend to find great comfort and strength in hero worship. its effects arepernicious incidious and long lasting. it is not unfortunately that surprising.
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/khrushchev-s-secret-speech-and-end-of-communism
In history, some events at first appear insignificant, or their significance is hidden, but they turn out to be earthshaking. Such a moment occurred 50 years ago, with Nikita Khrushchevs so-called Secret Speech to the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. It ranks, I believe, just below the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and the start of Hitlers War in 1939 as the most critical moment of the twentieth century.
At that moment, the communist movement appeared to be riding the tide of history, and not only for those in the Soviet Union. In the mid-1950s, communism was on the offensive in Europe, as well as in the emerging Third World. Capitalism seemed to be dying. All of communisms imperfections were deemed temporary, just bumps on the way to the just society that was then being born. A third of humanity saw the Soviet Union as leading the world toward global socialism.
The Twentieth Congress put an end to that. It was a moment of truth, a cleansing from within of the brutality of Stalinism. Khrushchevs speech to the Congress inspired doubt and second thoughts throughout the worldwide Communist movement.
Khrushchevs motives as he took the podium on the morning of February 25, 1956, were, in his mind, moral ones. After his ouster from power, in the seclusion of his dacha, he wrote: My hands are covered with blood. I did everything that others did. But even today if I have to go to that podium to report on Stalin, I would do it again. One day all that had to be over.
Khrushchev had, of course, been an intimate part of Stalins repressions, but he also didnt know half of what was going on. The whole Stalinist system of government was built on absolute secrecy, in which only the General Secretary himself knew the whole story. It wasnt terror that was the basis of Stalins power, but his complete monopoly on information. Khrushchev, for example, was stunned when he discovered that in the 1930s and 1940s, some 70% of Party members were annihilated.
Initially, Khrushchev didnt plan to keep his denunciation of Stalin a secret. Five days after the Congress, his speech was sent to all the leaders of the socialist countries and read at local party meetings across the Soviet Union. But people didnt know how to discuss it. And with good reason, for the problem with the de-Stalinization process was that, although the truth was partly revealed, no answer regarding what to do next was offered.
After the Congress, it became clear that the communist gospel was false and murderously corrupt. But no other ideology was offered, and the crisis the slow rot of the system that became clear during the era of stagnation under Leonid Brezhnev that began with Khrushchevs speech lasted another 30 years, until Mikhail Gorbachev took up his mantle of change.
The doubts inspired at the Congress may have been inchoate, but they nonetheless sowed genuine unrest. In the first of the protests that rocked the communist world in 1956, huge crowds in Georgia demanded that Khrushchev be fired and Stalins memory reinstated. An uprising in Poland and the far more tumultuous Hungarian Revolution argued for the opposite. The Poles demanded communism with a human face, and the Hungarians, after Imre Nagy sought to reform communism, ended up wanting no communism at all.
All of these protests were brutally crushed, which resulted in many West European Communists leaving the Party in utter disillusion. Khrushchevs speech also ignited the feud between Maos China and the USSR, for it allowed Mao to claim the crown of world revolutionary leadership.
Worried by the protests, Khrushchev tried to cool off the anti-Stalin campaign. The release of the Gulag prisoners that followed his speech continued, but it was done in silence. Party membership was restored to purge survivors, and they received new jobs, but they were forbidden from discussing the horrors that they had endured.
That silence lasted until 1961, when Khrushchev permitted new revelations of Stalin-era crimes. These were publicly reported and discussed on TV and radio. Stalins body was removed from Red Square, Stalin monuments were destroyed, and cities restored their original Soviet names. Stalingrad became Volgograd.
The idea of the Gulag entered our literature with Alexander Solzhenitsyns One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. This second anti-Stalinist campaign lasted two years, which was not nearly enough to change the countrys mentality.
The Twentieth Congress shattered the world Communist movement, and it turned out to be impossible to cement the cracks. The Soviet Union and other socialist countries faced a crisis of faith, as the main threat to communism was not imperialism, or ideological dissidents, but the movements own intellectual poverty and disillusion.
So, although it is common today in Russia to blame Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin for the collapse of the USSR, it is both useless and unfair to do so. The system was dead already, and it is to Yeltsins great credit that he was able to bring Russia out of the ruins in one piece. Although Russias future is uncertain, its history is becoming clearer, in part because we now know that the Twentieth Party Congress started the process that brought about the end of Soviet despotism.
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/khrushchev-s-secret-speech-and-end-of-communism
In history, some events at first appear insignificant, or their significance is hidden, but they turn out to be earthshaking. Such a moment occurred 50 years ago, with Nikita Khrushchevs so-called Secret Speech to the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. It ranks, I believe, just below the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and the start of Hitlers War in 1939 as the most critical moment of the twentieth century.
At that moment, the communist movement appeared to be riding the tide of history, and not only for those in the Soviet Union. In the mid-1950s, communism was on the offensive in Europe, as well as in the emerging Third World. Capitalism seemed to be dying. All of communisms imperfections were deemed temporary, just bumps on the way to the just society that was then being born. A third of humanity saw the Soviet Union as leading the world toward global socialism.
The Twentieth Congress put an end to that. It was a moment of truth, a cleansing from within of the brutality of Stalinism. Khrushchevs speech to the Congress inspired doubt and second thoughts throughout the worldwide Communist movement.
Khrushchevs motives as he took the podium on the morning of February 25, 1956, were, in his mind, moral ones. After his ouster from power, in the seclusion of his dacha, he wrote: My hands are covered with blood. I did everything that others did. But even today if I have to go to that podium to report on Stalin, I would do it again. One day all that had to be over.
Khrushchev had, of course, been an intimate part of Stalins repressions, but he also didnt know half of what was going on. The whole Stalinist system of government was built on absolute secrecy, in which only the General Secretary himself knew the whole story. It wasnt terror that was the basis of Stalins power, but his complete monopoly on information. Khrushchev, for example, was stunned when he discovered that in the 1930s and 1940s, some 70% of Party members were annihilated.
Initially, Khrushchev didnt plan to keep his denunciation of Stalin a secret. Five days after the Congress, his speech was sent to all the leaders of the socialist countries and read at local party meetings across the Soviet Union. But people didnt know how to discuss it. And with good reason, for the problem with the de-Stalinization process was that, although the truth was partly revealed, no answer regarding what to do next was offered.
After the Congress, it became clear that the communist gospel was false and murderously corrupt. But no other ideology was offered, and the crisis the slow rot of the system that became clear during the era of stagnation under Leonid Brezhnev that began with Khrushchevs speech lasted another 30 years, until Mikhail Gorbachev took up his mantle of change.
The doubts inspired at the Congress may have been inchoate, but they nonetheless sowed genuine unrest. In the first of the protests that rocked the communist world in 1956, huge crowds in Georgia demanded that Khrushchev be fired and Stalins memory reinstated. An uprising in Poland and the far more tumultuous Hungarian Revolution argued for the opposite. The Poles demanded communism with a human face, and the Hungarians, after Imre Nagy sought to reform communism, ended up wanting no communism at all.
All of these protests were brutally crushed, which resulted in many West European Communists leaving the Party in utter disillusion. Khrushchevs speech also ignited the feud between Maos China and the USSR, for it allowed Mao to claim the crown of world revolutionary leadership.
Worried by the protests, Khrushchev tried to cool off the anti-Stalin campaign. The release of the Gulag prisoners that followed his speech continued, but it was done in silence. Party membership was restored to purge survivors, and they received new jobs, but they were forbidden from discussing the horrors that they had endured.
That silence lasted until 1961, when Khrushchev permitted new revelations of Stalin-era crimes. These were publicly reported and discussed on TV and radio. Stalins body was removed from Red Square, Stalin monuments were destroyed, and cities restored their original Soviet names. Stalingrad became Volgograd.
The idea of the Gulag entered our literature with Alexander Solzhenitsyns One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. This second anti-Stalinist campaign lasted two years, which was not nearly enough to change the countrys mentality.
The Twentieth Congress shattered the world Communist movement, and it turned out to be impossible to cement the cracks. The Soviet Union and other socialist countries faced a crisis of faith, as the main threat to communism was not imperialism, or ideological dissidents, but the movements own intellectual poverty and disillusion.
So, although it is common today in Russia to blame Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin for the collapse of the USSR, it is both useless and unfair to do so. The system was dead already, and it is to Yeltsins great credit that he was able to bring Russia out of the ruins in one piece. Although Russias future is uncertain, its history is becoming clearer, in part because we now know that the Twentieth Party Congress started the process that brought about the end of Soviet despotism.
JurysOut
Just a person
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2011
- Messages
- 2,498
- Reaction score
- 0
JurysOut
Just a person
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2011
- Messages
- 2,498
- Reaction score
- 0
These guys have been remarkably unbiased in their coverage, IMO. I've followed them since November: http://onwardstate.com/
http://onwardstate.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Joe-Pa-Statue.jpg
http://onwardstate.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Joe-Pa-Statue.jpg
Reader
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2004
- Messages
- 7,033
- Reaction score
- 95
Good comment, BigCat, but that is not the way I read the article, that the writer is comparing the Penn State/JS scandal to scandals at other colleges. He makes the point as you quoted that what happened at Penn State is different and much worse than some of the 'stupidity' that caused problems at other schools.
I took it that he was pointing out the potential for major scandal exists at other schools if we don't look at the big picture and take some corrective action, as Penn State did not, to control the 'culture of reverence':
It seems to be a warning to other schools not a comparison, IMO.
I've definitely seen the 'culture of reverence' on a much smaller scale at my alma mater. We had a quarterback who kept getting suspended over and over again for alocohol related incidents. He was given second and third and fourth chances...it was obvious the kid was an alcoholic. We -- the entire football complex of the university -- were the enablers. Of course, he was eventually kicked out of school.
I don't think most football fans are aware of what it means to enable someone. I definitely don't think the Penn State 4 did (though you would think Spanier would have had some idea). Sandusky was never going to stop on his own, no matter what promises he made after the 98 incident.
JMO
Reader
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2004
- Messages
- 7,033
- Reaction score
- 95
A couple of schools have already made some corrective action:
Penn State scandal spurred Michigan to report old sex allegations
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...igan-sex-allegations-20120715,0,3797163.story
In November, as students rioted at Penn State University over coach Joe Paternos firing in the Jerry Sandusky scandal, the first hospital supervisor who had heard about Jenson started raising a question: Why hadnt anything happened to Jenson?
Hospital officials huddled again and police were contacted a week later, and an investigation began in earnest.
Since the news of the university's initial failure to report the child *advertiser censored* allegations to the police, the Department of Education has been looking into whether the university violated federal law requiring them do so, according to an AnnArbor.com report.
-------
Temple president names panel to examine policies in light of Penn State abuse scandal report
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/3e3e312d71ec4e57a788e6135572f95d/PA--Temple-Abuse-Task-Force
PHILADELPHIA A task force has been appointed to look at Temple University policies in light of a critical report on the sexual abuse scandal at Penn State.
Acting university president Richard Englert said he believed every university should take the report by former FBI Director Louis Freeh "as an opportunity to review its own policies and procedures."
The task force chaired by JoAnne Epps, dean of the Beasley School of Law, is to identify potential implications of the report for the university, including Temple University Health System, and recommend actions if warranted.
Penn State scandal spurred Michigan to report old sex allegations
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...igan-sex-allegations-20120715,0,3797163.story
In November, as students rioted at Penn State University over coach Joe Paternos firing in the Jerry Sandusky scandal, the first hospital supervisor who had heard about Jenson started raising a question: Why hadnt anything happened to Jenson?
Hospital officials huddled again and police were contacted a week later, and an investigation began in earnest.
Since the news of the university's initial failure to report the child *advertiser censored* allegations to the police, the Department of Education has been looking into whether the university violated federal law requiring them do so, according to an AnnArbor.com report.
-------
Temple president names panel to examine policies in light of Penn State abuse scandal report
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/3e3e312d71ec4e57a788e6135572f95d/PA--Temple-Abuse-Task-Force
PHILADELPHIA A task force has been appointed to look at Temple University policies in light of a critical report on the sexual abuse scandal at Penn State.
Acting university president Richard Englert said he believed every university should take the report by former FBI Director Louis Freeh "as an opportunity to review its own policies and procedures."
The task force chaired by JoAnne Epps, dean of the Beasley School of Law, is to identify potential implications of the report for the university, including Temple University Health System, and recommend actions if warranted.
J. J. in Phila
Verified Insider
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,447
- Reaction score
- 3,781
There is pressure to get former board chairman Steve Garban to resign from the BoT: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/18/3265726/pressure-mounts-for-ex-psu-board.html#disqus_thread
costalpilot
Active Member
"...Garban, a State College-area resident, was chairman of the board last year and was a target for criticism for how he handled child sex abuse charges against Jerry Sandusky and the fallout that followed...."
yes but the comment gives no indication who the pressure id coming from or why. is it from the pro joe cadre (Lucarno and company) whose goal is the restore the paterno name and are mad the BOT fired joe.
or is it due to failures relating to oversight?
either way, Lucarno and company will be happy to see him go.
one wonders how the politics of the board are being managed with the infusion of the adamant pro joe cadre. is this a reflection of that?
believe09
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 28,094
- Reaction score
- 506
someone started a BoT thread:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178963"]How will the BOT respond to the Freeh Report recommendations? - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
Reader
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2004
- Messages
- 7,033
- Reaction score
- 95
Corbett got the Jerry Sandusky case right
http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-...usky-case-ben-andreozzi-serial-child-predator
Louis Freeh's report on Penn State and the Jerry Sandusky case is notable partly for a criticism that it doesn't make: The former FBI director found no fault with Tom Corbett's handling of the criminal probe that ultimately brought down the serial child predator. That's because Corbett got it right.
Some of the commentary that followed last week's release of the report accused the governor and former attorney general of sitting on his hands by not arresting Sandusky after the first victim came forward. In fact, a reporter brought up the issue hours after the report's release, asking Corbett if he should have acted more quickly............
In my career as an advocate, I have seen too many single-accuser cases fail after an aggressive defense lawyer plants the seeds of confusion and doubt in a jury. Some of Sandusky's victims have said they would not have come forward if other victims were not expected to testify. They needed the strength of numbers. And when they realized the extent of Sandusky's predation, they felt not only the strength to testify, but also the duty........
To take down a pillar of the community, you need a jackhammer of a case. Corbett understood that. And when the complaint reached him unlike others who had suspicions about Sandusky's crimes over the years or even witnessed them Corbett acted..........
"The more prestigious the guy is, the more respected the guy is, the more complex the case is going to be," Lanning told me. "What made it [the Sandusky case] a successful prosecution is that they didn't rely on one victim. They found eight."..................
http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-...usky-case-ben-andreozzi-serial-child-predator
Louis Freeh's report on Penn State and the Jerry Sandusky case is notable partly for a criticism that it doesn't make: The former FBI director found no fault with Tom Corbett's handling of the criminal probe that ultimately brought down the serial child predator. That's because Corbett got it right.
Some of the commentary that followed last week's release of the report accused the governor and former attorney general of sitting on his hands by not arresting Sandusky after the first victim came forward. In fact, a reporter brought up the issue hours after the report's release, asking Corbett if he should have acted more quickly............
In my career as an advocate, I have seen too many single-accuser cases fail after an aggressive defense lawyer plants the seeds of confusion and doubt in a jury. Some of Sandusky's victims have said they would not have come forward if other victims were not expected to testify. They needed the strength of numbers. And when they realized the extent of Sandusky's predation, they felt not only the strength to testify, but also the duty........
To take down a pillar of the community, you need a jackhammer of a case. Corbett understood that. And when the complaint reached him unlike others who had suspicions about Sandusky's crimes over the years or even witnessed them Corbett acted..........
"The more prestigious the guy is, the more respected the guy is, the more complex the case is going to be," Lanning told me. "What made it [the Sandusky case] a successful prosecution is that they didn't rely on one victim. They found eight."..................